Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3612
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE RODGER MEIKLEJOHN – Appellant
Versus
RANJEET SINGH SIDHU & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCC-503-07/2024]
Application for Mareva injunction requires a good arguable case of fraud and real risk of asset dissipation, not merely based on allegations; must be supported by solid evidence.
Headnote:(A) Mareva Injunction - The applications concern restraining defendants from disposing of assets up to GBP10 million regarding fraudulent investment claims. The court examined whether there's a good arguable case and real risk of asset dissipation (Paras 1, 17-18).
(B) Legal standards for Mareva injunctions emphasize a fair chance of success combined with concrete evidence of dissipation risk (Paras 24-27).
(C) Full and frank disclosure at the ex parte stage is crucial, and the court found sufficient grounds to grant the injunction based on the presented evidence (Paras 92-104).
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff invested GBP10 million in Redeemable Cumulative Convertible Preference Shares of a company, alleging the funds were misappropriated by the defendants through corporate subterfuge (Paras 2-10).
Findings of Court:
The Plaintiff established a good arguable case but failed to demonstrate a real risk of asset dissipation concerning certain defendants (Paras 46, 75).
Issues: Whether the plaintiff's claims justify a Mareva injunction based on alleged fraudulent activities and the risk of asset dissipation (Paras 1, 17-18).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between an arguable case and the risk of dissipation, holding that both must be independently established (Paras 46, 61, 74).
Result: The application for a Mareva injunction was dismissed and the Ad Interim Orders were upheld with costs awarded against the plaintiff (Paras 46, 75).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of mareva injunction applications (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 2. plaintiff's arguments for mareva injunction (Para 15 , 16) |
| 3. existence of good arguable case (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. assessment of risk of dissipation (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. rejection of assumptions on dishonesty (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 6. need for concrete evidence of asset dissipation (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 7. establishing case against d6 (Para 46 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 8. risk of dissipation by d6 (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 9. rejection of speculation on d6 (Para 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 10. setting aside applications overview (Para 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 11. validity of ex parte mareva injunction (Para 91 , 96 , 101) |
[1] There are three applications before the court concerning a Mareva injunction to restrain several defendants from disposing of their assets up to the value of GBP10 million, which relates to an alleged fraudulent investment scheme involving multiple corporate entities. The plaintiff seeks to preserve the defendants' assets pending resolution of claims for fraudulent misrepresentation, dishonest assistance, and knowing receipt, while two groups of defendants have filed separate applications to set aside an earlier ad interim injunction order based on an ex parte Mareva injunction order. The key issues are whether there exists both a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify the Mareva injunction, as well as whether the Ex Parte Order was properly obtained.
Background facts
[2] In 2010, the Plaintiff, Lee Rodger Meiklejohn, a British citizen, met with the 1st Defendant, Ranjeet Singh Sidhu ("D1") in Edinburgh, Scotland, where discussions took place regarding investment opportunities in Malaysia. This, according to the Plaintiff, involved the investment of GBP10,000,000.00 for the purchase of Redeemable Cumulative Convertible Preference Shares ("RCCPS") in Vasseti Berhad ("VB").
[3] During this period, Work Legal E Limited ("WLE') entered into a Subscription Agreement with the 4th Defendant, G&P Solutions Sdn Bhd ("D4") dated 13 October 2010, under which WLE would subscribe to 48 million redeemable convertible preference shares in D4 at RM1.00 each, carrying a fixed dividend of 1.6% per annum.
[4] Between October 2010 and April 2011, funds totalling GBP10 million were transferred to D4's bank account in Malaysia. The transfers occurred in multiple tranches, with GBP8 million transferred between October and December 2010 through six transactions, and the remaining GBP2 million transferred in April 2011.
[5] Vasseti (UK) Plc ("VUK') was incorporated in England in June 2011 and subsequently listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. VB became a wholly-owned subsidiary of VUK.
[6] In December 2013, the Plaintiff met with D1 at his office in Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Subsequently, in March 2014, they met again at the Templar Park Golf Club, Malaysia. During 2015, the Plaintiff travelled to Kuala Lumpur and attended meetings with D1. At one of these meetings, the Plaintiff was introduced to the 2nd Defendant, Tan Sri Syed Mohd Yusof bin Tun Syed Nasir ("DZ) during a corporate social event.
[7] In October 2017, a Skype conversation took place between the Plaintiff and D4. By the end of February 2018, enquiries were made with VB regarding investments. The Plaintiff discovered that VB had not received the GBP10,000,000.00 he contends he had invested through D4 for the RCCPS.
[8] On 20 July 2018, the Plaintiff sent an email to the D1 requesting certain documentation.
[9] The Plaintiff later discovered that the funds had not been utilised to purchase VB's RCCPS but were diverted through the 5th Defendant, Rothchilds Capital (I) Sdn Bhd ("D5"), and the 6th Defendant, G&P Resources Sdn Bhd ("D6"), entities associated with D1 and others.
[10] In 2021, a
